February 11, 2019 | 9:59 pm By Bienvenido S.
Oplas, Jr.
The cronyist “Solar
para sa Bayan Corporation” (SPBC) franchise bill (HB 8179) was magically passed
by the House of Representatives despite opposition by many groups in the energy
sector. Among the oppositors is the Developers of Renewable Energy for
AdvanceMent, Inc. (DREAM), the umbrella organization of all RE associations in
the Philippines.
As I did in my letter
to Sen. Grace Poe, arguing for the junking of HB 8179, DREAM said the bill is
unconstitutional and should not be passed. In particular, (1) it violates the
equal protection clause under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
The proposed SPBC franchise has no substantial distinction with other
generators that will not be granted a similar franchise. (2) It violates the
fundamental right to due process of law under the Constitution. And (3) it
violates the proscription against unfair competition.
Nonetheless, a Senate
Committee Report 659 was passed last week, February 7, 2019, and some
outlandish provisions from the original bill have been tamed. Among the changes
is that the operational coverage “in any… areas throughout the Philippines” has
been limited to only 13 provinces.
Note three things here:
(1) SPBC claims it is competitive yet it requires a Congressional franchise and
a franchise by nature is a monopoly, (2) EPIRA law of 2001 has unbundled energy
components and players are classified as transmission, generation,
distribution, supply companies; SPBC is a generation, distribution and supply
company rolled into one, and (3) first time that a franchise will have
implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
BusinessWorld reported (“Court
challenge looms for Solar Para Sa Bayan franchise,” February 08, 2019) that the
Coalition for Rural Electrification (CoRE) warned that such a franchise bill
may not hold up to a court challenge. Good. It is shameless that this bill was
rushed at the House and the Senate where a member is the mother of the company
owner as we all know. If it becomes law, the measure should be called as Solar
para sa Pulitika Corp.
Meanwhile, on another
front, there is a last-minute lobby by various protectionist groups who insist
that expensive rice is good for the country and the poor. They oppose SB 1998
or the Rice Tariffication bill, removing quantitative restrictions (QR) and
replacing it with a 35% tariff rate on imported rice from ASEAN, and 40% or
higher on imported rice outside of ASEAN.
The protectionists’
main argument is that rice liberalization will lead to the demise of the local
rice industry as there will be a huge influx of imported rice from our
neighbors.
This is outright
disinformation, deception and lie. Even if we wanted to import one-half or even
one-fourth of our domestic rice consumption, it is not possible, it is not
going to happen.
Data from the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that Philippine rice production has
been steadily rising and the average productivity per hectare has also been
rising, from only 2.2 tons per hectare in 1980 to 4.0 in 2017.
The two big rice
exporters in the world, Thailand and Vietnam, have actually experienced a
declining or low expansion in rice output. Thailand’s output declined from 35.7
M tons in 2010 to 33.4 M tons in 2017. Over the same period, Vietnam’s output
increased a little from 40 to 42.8 M tons.
So the Philippines’
rice importation will be limited and restricted even if it wants to import more
and there will be no such demise in the local rice industry. Rice trade
liberalization should proceed, and NFA’s distortionist monopoly of power to
regulate rice imports should be removed.
The 35% tariff is
actually high. Why should a P30/kilo potential landed price of rice from ASEAN
neighbors be made P40.50/kilo to many poor Philippine households? That 35%
should go down through time, down to zero for rice imports from ASEAN.
No comments:
Post a Comment